So, just as I can attend an EP or Antiochian Church in the USA, I can do the same for the Phillipines even though the same canonical nightmare exists in the latter as it does in the former?

Would you attend a Novus Ordo Mass, partake unleavened wafers offered by Antiochian Orthodox priests in Roman Catholic vestments? Please, you are making a big mistake comparing the Antiochian Orthodox in the US with the Antiochian Orthodox in the Philippines. Do I need to repost the "massive" photos and get another warning from the Moderator of this thread???

Alright, for the sake of the "new comers" here it is once more:

Image removed

You've been instructed by two different moderators not to repost the same image over and over again. Seeing as you have acknowledged receiving this instruction and have decided to repost your image anyway, you may consider this a formal warning. If such behavior continues, you may face further sanctions such as being put on post moderation, where all of your posts must be approved by a moderator.Veniamin, Free-for-All Moderator

If you will read carefully the so-called "PRESBYTERAL REPORT" written by one Father John D' Alton (Antiochian Orthodox Church, Australia) (please see excerpt below) then that seems to be the case SolEX01 and I totally agree with your observation. I would like to hear what ozgeorge has to say about this so-called "PRESBYTERAL REPORT":

The facts are that the negotiations between the EP and Met. Paul and Antioch have been long and far more complex than stated here. Secondly there is a very cordial working agreement, not animosity as suggested here at times.

filipiniana,Fr. John D-Alton is in Australia, how would he know what is going on in the Philippines? Get real.

« Last Edit: February 01, 2009, 10:03:15 AM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Would you attend a Novus Ordo Mass, partake unleavened wafers offered by Antiochian Orthodox priests in Roman Catholic vestments? Please, you are making a big mistake comparing the Antiochian Orthodox in the US with the Antiochian Orthodox in the Philippines. Do I need to repost the "massive" photos and get another warning from the Moderator of this thread???

I'm deeply sorry if the Antiochian Orthodox Church has left a sour taste in your mouth in the Phillipines and I'm deeply sorry you received a colored dot. If you feel that the Western Rite is not an appropriate Liturgy for you, try to Worship at the EP's Churches where no EP Church has ever used the Western Rite

What's wrong with that image anyway? Ah, yes it exposes the TRUTH! It is such an eye sore seeing how Orthodoxy has been misrepresented and bastardized by Antioch in my country. Okay, if you want to BAN me for exposing the truth then do it now. Anyway, I have said what I have to say. Farewell and may God forgive us sinners and may God have mercy and forgive the transgressing Hierarchs of our beloved Orthodox Church.

May God Bless You and strengthen the Orthodox Church in the Phillipines. Amen!

The above-quoted complaint about moderation has been split into its own thread:

As far as I know there is no any"under table agreement"betwwen EP and AP for Philipines. Why someone insist on such phantasy which obviously cannot be proved as real.

To what post are you referring?

Did filipiniana said something like this? I remember he/she or someone else said there is a "secret agreement" between EP and AP. An illusion or false memory?

I have to confess that, since this thread isn't in my area of responsibility, I haven't been keeping up with the discussion all that much. You'll need to quote the post you're referencing or post a link to that post for me to see what you're talking about.

Could it be possible that during the meeting of Autocephalous Orthodox leaders that Pat. Ignatius brought up the Phillipines issue with the EP and the EP OK'ed the addition of the Phillipines to the Metropolitan of Australia and New Zealand resulting in the EP's comments that the canonical nightmare needs to be rectified?

So, just as I can attend an EP or Antiochian Church in the USA, I can do the same for the Phillipines even though the same canonical nightmare exists in the latter as it does in the former?

Such a decision between two Patriarchs is not likely to be publicized on anyone's website; However, some official paperwork is bound to exist whether in Damascus or Australia?

2. No one apparently has said anything 3 months after the change in the Metropolitan's Website was made in November 2008. For no one to have raised an objection (especially the EP's Met. of Hong Kong) leads me to believe that the change was made with the blessing of the EP especially when the EP Himself called for an Ecumenical Council to resolve all canonical issues. After all, how can the EP object to the Philippines where the same jurisdictional mess exists in the USA and elsewhere? Now, as to Antiochian Clergy celebrating Novus Ordo Masses, that is a pastoral decision which is made by Met. Paul Saliba although I bet that allowing the celebration of the Novus Ordo Mass as an Orthodox Liturgy doesn't count as Economy.

Remember, the Patriarch of Antioch is known as the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch where Greek only signifies language and (ideally) nothing else.

Remember, the Patriarch of Antioch is known as the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch where Greek only signifies language and (ideally) nothing else.

Yikes. You need to read a lot more history before posting something as wrong as this. We've addressed this in other threads, dude - threads that I know you've read and participated in.

Wrong how? However appropriate, the term Greek Orthodox is used as opposed to Greek Catholic, Syriac Orthodox, and Maronite patriarchs who also claim Antioch (although I only recall seeing the Arab/Greek Orthodox having a cathedral there).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

There's more to your assertion than just the name "Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch". What about your reasoning that this title "Greek" signifies language only and nothing else?

Exactly what you said - The Greek Orthodox Church obtains the name from the use of the Greek language and to distinguiush Herself from the Roman Catholics who use Latin as a liturgical language only. As for the Patriarch of Antioch, the use of Greek in His Title is to distinguish the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch from everyone else in Antioch as ialmisry mentioned.

Remember, the Patriarch of Antioch is known as the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch where Greek only signifies language and (ideally) nothing else.

Yikes. You need to read a lot more history before posting something as wrong as this. We've addressed this in other threads, dude - threads that I know you've read and participated in.

Wrong how? However appropriate, the term Greek Orthodox is used as opposed to Greek Catholic, Syriac Orthodox, and Maronite patriarchs who also claim Antioch (although I only recall seeing the Arab/Greek Orthodox having a cathedral there).

Wrong: "language only and (ideally) nothing else." Sorry I wasn't clearer. Methinks you will agree with my assessment.

There's more to your assertion than just the name "Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch". What about your reasoning that this title "Greek" signifies language only and nothing else?

I'm glad someone understood what I was getting at. The title "Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch" is a given; although, truth be told, "Roman Patriarch of Antioch" is probably more historically correct. But the Greek appellation is for more than language (which is - surprise! - Arabic, no?), but for culture, musical tradition, phronema, etc.

There's more to your assertion than just the name "Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch". What about your reasoning that this title "Greek" signifies language only and nothing else?

Exactly what you said - The Greek Orthodox Church obtains the name from the use of the Greek language and to distinguiush Herself from the Roman Catholics who use Latin as a liturgical language only. As for the Patriarch of Antioch, the use of Greek in His Title is to distinguish the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch from everyone else in Antioch as ialmisry mentioned.

There's more to your assertion than just the name "Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch". What about your reasoning that this title "Greek" signifies language only and nothing else?

Exactly what you said - The Greek Orthodox Church obtains the name from the use of the Greek language and to distinguiush Herself from the Roman Catholics who use Latin as a liturgical language only. As for the Patriarch of Antioch, the use of Greek in His Title is to distinguish the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch from everyone else in Antioch as ialmisry mentioned.

What doesn't come out in the English is that the word in Arabic for Greek in this means "Roman."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'm glad someone understood what I was getting at. The title "Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch" is a given; although, truth be told, "Roman Patriarch of Antioch" is probably more historically correct. But the Greek appellation is for more than language (which is - surprise! - Arabic, no?), but for culture, musical tradition, phronema, etc.

I've never seen a kotsari danced at an Antiochian Church festival or hafli.

The Byzantine/Greek Culture didn't result in a loss or diminuition of Arabic Culture.

I used the term "ideally" as a sarcastic tone to help the people in the Philippines understand why they are in the middle of a Jurisdictional roller coaster like America in the 1910's and 1920's. I apologize for not being clearer and I ask for forgiveness....

The Byzantine/Greek Culture didn't result in a loss or diminuition of Arabic Culture.

Roman/Greek/Byzantine Culture was there before "Arabic." Thankfully, the Arabic Culture didn't result in a loss or "diminution" of Roman/Greek/Byzantine Culture - instead, the two blended well to create Antiochian Christianity in the modern world. How wonderful.

I used the term "ideally" as a sarcastic tone to help the people in the Philippines understand why they are in the middle of a Jurisdictional roller coaster like America in the 1910's and 1920's. I apologize for not being clearer and I ask for forgiveness....

^ Whew, I hope everyone feels better. I apologize once again for the roller coaster caused by my own word choice. At least I didn't suggest that Orthodox Christian Filippinos take a crash course in liturgical Arabic or Greek.

Yes, I forgot about listening to A Capella Byzantine Chant at the Antiochian Church in my area. I also forgot about the fun we had posting in size 99 font.

Most of you have probably heard about the jurisdictional problems here in the Philippines. I have been chrismated in the Antiochian jurisdiction, but then again even the way I was chrismated was questionable in a sense that I was only anointed on the head. I have decided now to leave the jurisdiction, especially with all the stuff that's been happening, I prefer to be in an Orthodox Church, where its being canonical is least questioned. Besides, the priests of the EP here, do not recognize my chrismation, and even tell me that because of what happened in my case, I have to be re-baptized into the Orthodox faith.

What precisely, if I may ask, do they think necessitates re-baptism? something expressly forbidden by the Creed?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It is because of the manner I was chrismated, in a sense that it was "unorthodox" (I can't find the right term). I was anointed only in the head, which is of course not the way it should be. It was what was decided by the EP vicar in Manila.

Logged

""Pride is not the opposite of shame, but it's source. True humility is the only antidote to shame.""— Iroh- Avatar:The Last Airbender

It is because of the manner I was chrismated, in a sense that it was "unorthodox" (I can't find the right term). I was anointed only in the head, which is of course not the way it should be. It was what was decided by the EP vicar in Manila.

I can see that argument (not that I agree, but I can see the argument), but why rebaptism?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

im happy that sohma hatori has found a more stable home in the EP.May the grace of our Lord Jesus be always with him. Im just sad that the question of territorial jurisdiction really left a bittter taste in the mouth.To those who are contemplating to make the big jump to orthodoxy from what orthodox christians would call uncanonical and heteredox churches...the heated debate about it appears, to the reading observer like me, to produce more heat than light. It seems like the drama unfolding at the foot of the cross of Christ, while Christ pays the supreme sacrifice for the sins of mankind, the roman soldiers haggle and gamble for the earthly possessions of Christ. The whole world is suffering....yet here we are...fighting each other to be the sole governor and administrator of a territory. its just so sad..But i am not a priest nor the son of a priest...just a sinner........

I agree with ozgeorge:"The sooner you all join the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Philippines the better." yepp, I fully honestly agree if only it were so simple. (no this is not sarcasm). As he well knows in some countries Antiochian priests and lay would be welcome, but in others sadly not :-(

We aim for unity while recognising the tragic disunity :-(

I have no interest in assigning blame for the various kinds of messes created by every patriachate at various times. What is more useful is as someone posted- creating unity and resolving the issue.

Which is why it is important to remember as i posted before: there *were* ongoing discussions over several years between Antioch and EP about this (neither secret nor under nor over any tables). However, we have no right to demand explanations from any Antioch and EP bishops about these matters since they are acting following patriachate blessings. If anyone has a problem it should be taken up with your own Patriach, not used as a chance to attack other jurisdictions.

Any concern over current liturgical practices should be seen in perspective of a temporary transition toward the proper St John Chrysostom liturgy. How can people expect priests to learn this in 1 day. please be realistic. It takes awhile to learn properly Met. Paul has invested considerable $ in providing training so the transition should be possible. All those photos will not be relevant in a year!

There are obviously challenges in the Philippines, but they are best overcome between the patriachs who discussed within the context that there are now 1000s of new Orthodox there. This is a good thing, even though messy. We should not assign bad motives nor lack of foresight where none exists. Such a low view of bishops is not healthy.

Also, please do not quote me and put words or interpretations in my mouth. I think I am being quite clear and calm here.

Which is why it is important to remember as i posted before: there *were* ongoing discussions over several years between Antioch and EP about this (neither secret nor under nor over any tables).

Father, there are "ongoing discussions" on this forum- doesn't mean people agree. An ongoing discussion is just that, a discussion. We have Orthodox-Catholic dialogues going on- doesn't mean either side has agreed on dogmatic differences. A discussion is not a blessing to do something, nor an agreement on a course of action; it's a discussion.

George

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

PS, thanks ozgeorge for trying to keep this calm and truthful.To clarify, you could not find the link because there has never been any "prebyterial report". i have no idea where that concept came from. My only post about this was on this forum.

Why would I know what is happening? I first went to the Philippines in 1987. Although based in Australia i am a missionary priest. Over the last 25 years I've probably been to 20 countries, especially India, and keep in close contact with the Philippines situation. hence my grief :-( Also Met. Paul discusses this with me.

Which is why i suggest again that anyone too upset should talk to their Patriarchs and not promote unseemly arguments.

in Christ,Fr. John D'Alton, Antiochian Orthodox priest, Archdiocese of Australia, NZ and Philppines.

You wrote: "Father, there are "ongoing discussions" on this forum- doesn't mean people agree. An ongoing discussion is just that, a discussion. We have Orthodox-Catholic dialogues going on- doesn't mean either side has agreed on dogmatic differences. A discussion is not a blessing to do something, nor an agreement on a course of action; it's a discussion."

Yes i get your point. Quite valid. Let me clarify. I do not *know* whether there were just discussions or actual *agreements* made. I'm being perfectly frank. I *understood* that there *was* some agreement. To know we'd have to ask the Patriarchs involved. You have my full encouragement to do so. maybe that would clarify all this! More light and less heat would be great :-)

George, well done! I just went back and saw a few posts I missed including you sending the fax. Pls do send the answer to me.

As for Chris Gain, as far as i know, he is no longer under the Antiochian Patriachate and has not been for quite some time, probably from not long after his release from Met. Paul.

AFAIK, Met. Paul was appointed by the holy synod of Antioch as Archbishop of Philippines. He would never self-appoint!

I know you will still not be happy with this. I will not argue with you. I leave it up to our respective patriarch's to resolve. Otherwise we lesser saints (or greater sinners) will have too much anger and not the wisdom of our Patriarchs to handle our disagreement in love and wisdom.

May God work it out in our lifetime! warmly,in Christ,Fr. John D'Alton

Could it be possible that during the meeting of Autocephalous Orthodox leaders that Pat. Ignatius brought up the Phillipines issue with the EP and the EP OK'ed the addition of the Phillipines to the Metropolitan of Australia and New Zealand resulting in the EP's comments that the canonical nightmare needs to be rectified?

Sol, read again.The Statement of the EP came out in July 2008. The Antiochian Archdiocese changed it's title to include the Philippines in November 2008.If you go to the official website of "The Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and The Philippines" you will find links to two videos of the Metropolitan there which were uploaded in November and, to the tune of some touchy-feely evangelical song, you will see the video's entitled: "Welcome Paul Saliba His Eminence Metropolitan Primate of Australia and New Zealand"...no mention of "The Philippines" in his title then.Check the videos for yourself:http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/NewsItem.aspx?i=56

I am puzzled why the matter of overlapping jurisdiction should be a matter of concern in this particular case.

How many Orthodox bishops are there in Australia with the title of "Sydney, Australia and New Zealand"? Bishops from the Church of Constantinople, Russian, Antiochian, Serbian, Romanian... more? If we have overlapping jurisdictions and episcopal titles in Australia, why is it a problem in the Philippines? Yes, it is out of line with the canons, but let's face it, it is the norm in the entire diaspora. The Serbian bishop in Australia even has (or has it been removed?) the title "... of South Africa" depite the fact that that is way out of line since it is arguably the canonical territory of Alexandria.

I suspect that there is Greek bishop with the title "...of Japan" even though there is an autonomous Church of Japan.

Someone wrote: "So the issue, I understand, is not simply that it is Western Rite, but rather, that it appears deceptive in a predominantly Roman Catholic country to have an Orthodox Church which looks exactly like a Roman Catholic Church......I think this needs to be made clear to His Eminence, Metropolitan Archbishop Paul Saliba."

I know for a fact that His Eminence was quite aware of this and took it into consideration, plus 25 other issues, in deciding what way and when and how to have a transition to St john Chrysostom liturgy, when there were untrained priests with no good orthodox vestments, living at the poverty line... etc

It is below orthodox good manners to assume that his eminence would not have thought about this. At least in Antioch we know that our bishops think about things. If anyone has another experience with their own bishop they should not project this onto other bishops. "Where the bishop is, there i s the church" St Ignatius. let us have a higher regard for bishops and honour them as representing Christ.

It is therefore quite inappropriate for a lay person to suggest that anything needs to be made clear to a bishop on a public forum, which he is likely to have already considered. Such statements demean and dishonour bishops and sound arrogant. Orthodoxy is humility as the Mt. Athos holy ones teach us. People should stop assuming the worst of Met. Paul.

It is below orthodox good manners to assume that his eminence would not have thought about this. At least in Antioch we know that our bishops think about things. If anyone has another experience with their own bishop they should not project this onto other bishops. "Where the bishop is, there i s the church" St Ignatius. let us have a higher regard for bishops and honour them as representing Christ.

I'm all for respecting Bishops. But this is not about personalities, it's about canonical Ecclesiology.

Orthodoxy is humility as the Mt. Athos holy ones teach us. People should stop assuming the worst of Met. Paul.

Orthodoxy is truth, as the Athonites teach us. The Athonites are actually among the first to speak up when a Bishop does something uncanonical. Yes, we are Christ's sheep, but we are rational sheep. And the rational sheep of Christ want this insanity of jurisdictionalism to end.We have created a jurisdictional nightmare here in Australia with different Bishops claiming jurisdiction over the same territory, and now our Australian Bishops want to export this to other nations.Why?

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Father John, there is just a concern I would like to raise with all due respect. I was chrismated by the vicar-general of Davao during His Eminence's visit to the Philippines. Unfortunately due to a sudden change of travel plans, I had to go home to my hometown on the day when His Eminence Paul was supposed to celebrate Divine liturgy at a hall they rented from a protestant church, so I was not able to attend and be chrismated by him. However, the vicar priest did agree to chrismate me in a simple ceremony. We said a few prayers, informal ones, then he anointed me, but only on my forehead.

I had so many doubts about that "chrismation" because I am aware that this is not the prescribed practice. But then, I was told that this was also the method by which others including some priests themselves were chrismated.

Logged

""Pride is not the opposite of shame, but it's source. True humility is the only antidote to shame.""— Iroh- Avatar:The Last Airbender

If we have overlapping jurisdictions and episcopal titles in Australia, why is it a problem in the Philippines?

Because this would be nothing short of colonialism of the worst kind.Why would we want to export something to the Philippines which is uncanonical here?

Well, you exported it to my country, in the 1960s, and it seems to be working very well. We now have a variety of "colonising" jurisdictions and converts are able to choose the one which suits them best. Some prefer Russian ways (often Roman Catholics), others Greek and others Antiochian (often Anglicans.) The multiplicity of Orthodox Churches colonising this country has accelerated the rate of conversion.

Father John, there is just a concern I would like to raise with all due respect. I was chrismated by the vicar-general of Davao during His Eminence's visit to the Philippines. Unfortunately due to a sudden change of travel plans, I had to go home to my hometown on the day when His Eminence Paul was supposed to celebrate Divine liturgy at a hall they rented from a protestant church, so I was not able to attend and be chrismated by him. However, the vicar priest did agree to chrismate me in a simple ceremony. We said a few prayers, informal ones, then he anointed me, but only on my forehead.

I had so many doubts about that "chrismation" because I am aware that this is not the prescribed practice. But then, I was told that this was also the method by which others including some priests themselves were chrismated.

Chrisimation of those who have not received Orthodox Baptism is supposed to complete what is lacking in their baptism. In other words, anyone who is received from an heterodox Church by Chrisimation could also be received by Baptism and Chrisimation, but Chrisimation only is a way of receiving converts which completes what is lacking in their baptism.I don't understand why the Antiochian Church would receive people with an abbreviated form of Chrisimation. It seems to me that if you were receiving people whose baptism was lacking, you would receive them with full Chrisimation. Perhaps there is some abridged form of Chrisimation in the Antiochian Church?

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Because this situation is causing terrible pain in the Philippines.I know people personally who are suffering because of this. I don't want to add to their pain, or bring any more discredit to the Orthodox Church there than this sorry situation already has.Those who want to know for genuine reasons (not gossip) have asked me and I've pmed them.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Could it be possible that during the meeting of Autocephalous Orthodox leaders that Pat. Ignatius brought up the Phillipines issue with the EP and the EP OK'ed the addition of the Phillipines to the Metropolitan of Australia and New Zealand resulting in the EP's comments that the canonical nightmare needs to be rectified?

Sol, read again.The Statement of the EP came out in July 2008. The Antiochian Archdiocese changed it's title to include the Philippines in November 2008.If you go to the official website of "The Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and The Philippines" you will find links to two videos of the Metropolitan there which were uploaded in November and, to the tune of some touchy-feely evangelical song, you will see the video's entitled: "Welcome Paul Saliba His Eminence Metropolitan Primate of Australia and New Zealand"...no mention of "The Philippines" in his title then.Check the videos for yourself:http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/NewsItem.aspx?i=56

I am puzzled why the matter of overlapping jurisdiction should be a matter of concern in this particular case.

How many Orthodox bishops are there in Australia with the title of "Sydney, Australia and New Zealand"? Bishops from the Church of Constantinople, Russian, Antiochian, Serbian, Romanian... more? If we have overlapping jurisdictions and episcopal titles in Australia, why is it a problem in the Philippines? Yes, it is out of line with the canons, but let's face it, it is the norm in the entire diaspora. The Serbian bishop in Australia even has (or has it been removed?) the title "... of South Africa" depite the fact that that is way out of line since it is arguably the canonical territory of Alexandria.

No argument about it: the agreement was made between everyone in the 1920s, sparing Africa much of the nonsense that goes on in the diaspora.

Quote

I suspect that there is Greek bishop with the title "...of Japan" even though there is an autonomous Church of Japan.

I recall when the Greek hierarchy was set up there, but I don't about it since.

If we have overlapping jurisdictions and episcopal titles in Australia, why is it a problem in the Philippines?

Because this would be nothing short of colonialism of the worst kind.Why would we want to export something to the Philippines which is uncanonical here?

What else should we export to "the barbarians."

No, a certain interpretation of the "famous" canon 28 of Chalcedon is colonialism of the worst kind.

I can't speak for Father, but when people act as it 5 bishops in one city is normal, normal enough not to be doing ANYTHING about it (and I am thinking of the reaction to Ligonier here in the U.S.), then they can't act outraged when that plague spreads.

If we have overlapping jurisdictions and episcopal titles in Australia, why is it a problem in the Philippines?

Because this would be nothing short of colonialism of the worst kind.Why would we want to export something to the Philippines which is uncanonical here?

Well, you exported it to my country, in the 1960s, and it seems to be working very well. We now have a variety of "colonising" jurisdictions and converts are able to choose the one which suits them best. Some prefer Russian ways (often Roman Catholics), others Greek and others Antiochian (often Anglicans.) The multiplicity of Orthodox Churches colonising this country has accelerated the rate of conversion.

Father, I don't know about Australia, but in the U.S. it also has cost a number of conversions, and the craddle Orthodox, who tire of the squabbling. Then there are those (and from our CAF days, I know you know this) from the Vatican pointing out that at least with them, you know who is in charge, and even state that the Orthodox are not a Church, something Card. Kasper claims.

Myself, I would prefer the OCA solution (yes, it has done some things right. Their translations are also generally the best), local bishops, a number of which serve as eparchies for various ethnic groups. Or what Alexandria and Antioch have done with vicarates.

« Last Edit: March 03, 2009, 08:57:49 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I suspect that there is Greek bishop with the title "...of Japan" even though there is an autonomous Church of Japan.

I recall when the Greek hierarchy was set up there, but I don't about it since.

I happen to know because the Greek bishop who held the title "...of Japan" was one well known to me during his 30 year tenure here in Wellington.

It was in 1970 that the Patriarchate of Constantinople created the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of New Zealand by separating it from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia. Bishop Dionysios (Psiahas) was elected Metropolitan of New Zealand and Exarch of India, Korea and Japan.

Dear ozgeorge,I think I have not explained what i meant clearly. i agree with you about using our minds and keeping correct " canonical Ecclesiology". As you wrote: "I'm all for respecting Bishops. But this is not about personalities, it's about canonical Ecclesiology."That's exactly what I mean. The canons say if you have a problem with a bishop you talk to them directly. The canons and Orthodox ecclesiology do not allow for open slander as some others have done on this list. I know that you have faxed the right people, well done. The canons and the holy fathers also talk about refraining from gossip and the virtue of covering up the sins of others and not exposing them, so that problems in the Church are dealt with in decorum. that is what i am talking about.

A pertinent question is to ask what specific bishop gives his blessing and oversight to this list?

I wrote:"Orthodoxy is humility as the Mt. Athos holy ones teach us. People should stop assuming the worst of Met. Paul."You wrote:"Orthodoxy is truth, as the Athonites teach us. The Athonites are actually among the first to speak up when a Bishop does something uncanonical. Yes, we are Christ's sheep, but we are rational sheep. And the rational sheep of Christ want this insanity of jurisdictionalism to end."

Look, I agree they do challenge bishops, but the they usually write quietly first before the public writings, and after all they are holy monks!! not lay people 1000s of km away from the issues! So if you are right, and i agree with you about challenging bishops, then do it the right way. Which is not being done by 90% here. You have faxed. good. If you are still concerned then keep talking to the relevant bishops. Stirring up anger on this list is NOT the way to achieve your and my goal of helping bring "this insanity of jurisdictionalism to end." The way is to assume the best not the worst of bishops. Question, but with respect.

You wrote: "We have created a jurisdictional nightmare here in Australia with different Bishops claiming jurisdiction over the same territory, and now our Australian Bishops want to export this to other nations.Why?"

By this you are also attacking Arch Stylianos of Australia, so i suggest you don't do that, but in humility ask him directly why.And be ready in humility to agree or disagree but live with the answer :-)

I hope others follow your example and follow correct canonical ecclesiology in these matters too. i am concerned for the souls of those who gossip and slander instead of going straight to their priests and bishops.I doubt any bishop would give his blessing to most of what happens on this list :-(

about forms of Chrismation. You have both asked a good question in a polite tone which I applaud :-)Firstly, if you know Orthodox canons you will know that there Traditions which cannot be changed, but according to the Rudder, the bishop has many perogatives and in economia can modify the lesser traditions.

You would also know that the correct canonical procedure in relation to your question is to ask the bishop involved. Please do that. Then you will have God's blessings :-) Write to Met. Paul and ask his eminence yourself.

30 years ago as a young adult I was full of questions which I was afraid to ask my leaders. But when i learnt to talk directly to the church leaders it solved much. Please do the same.

That's exactly what I mean. The canons say if you have a problem with a bishop you talk to them directly.

Which Canons actually say this Father? I don't think the Canons stipulate this. The difficulty in this situation is that there is no Ecclesiastical Court or any other body recognised by both sides as authoritative because of the uncanonical situation of multiple jurisdictions. If we were, say, in Greece or Damascus, the matter could be settled by the Synod of the local Church, and if anyone were not satisfied that the outcome was correct, then they could appeal to Constrantinople under the Canons. The problem we have here is that two Bishops are claiming jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church in the same area (a problem which has existed for about 3-4 generations in countires like the US, UK, Australia etc).

The canons and Orthodox ecclesiology do not allow for open slander as some others have done on this list. I know that you have faxed the right people, well done. The canons and the holy fathers also talk about refraining from gossip and the virtue of covering up the sins of others and not exposing them, so that problems in the Church are dealt with in decorum.

Father, what makes this "slander"? When people who are actually in the Philippines in the middle of this situation express their dismay and their disappointment, if we then effectively say to them "Keep your mouths shut publically for the sake of decorum", what are we saying about transparency and accountability in the Orthodox Church?

You wrote: "We have created a jurisdictional nightmare here in Australia with different Bishops claiming jurisdiction over the same territory, and now our Australian Bishops want to export this to other nations.Why?"

By this you are also attacking Arch Stylianos of Australia, so i suggest you don't do that, but in humility ask him directly why.And be ready in humility to agree or disagree but live with the answer :-)

What exactly are you accusing Archbishop Stylianos of here? I actually have no problem with disagreeing with him, and have done so in the past, but I'm not sure what you are talking about here. What has Archbishop Stylianos done specifically to warrant this accusation? The first Orthodox Bishop in Australia and New Zealand was Metropolitan Christoforos of the Ecumenical Patriarchate- you're surely not going to suggest that Archbishop Stylianos is responsible for the jurisdictional mess here?

« Last Edit: March 03, 2009, 07:56:39 PM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.